User talk:Mtin76

Excellent Number One men tennis editing[edit]

Your edits to the Mens Number One rankings page were great. I see they were reverted back already, and if they are changed again you need to keep reverting them back, as they are what most people agree with. Great additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieTenerelli (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mtin76! Thank you for your contributions. I am DRAGON BOOSTER and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilas ranking[edit]

I don't have a big problem with co-#1 in 1977 at the World number 1 ranked male tennis players article. I do have an issue with how it's being done and with other changes. Bring it to the talk page where perhaps a co-#1 1977 ranking can get consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Fyunk's world "consensus" means things that are only the opinion of Fyunk and nobody else. NatalieTenerelli(click) (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2018 (EST)

Informed analysis (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)As it looks like Fyunk and Wolbo and anyone else does not object to my changes which result in Vilas being present-day co-number 1 for 1977. You might as well go in and change the tables listing how many years players were number 1 near the end of the article. You may chose to make changes to other articles that have sections on year-by-year number 1 players, but I am not initiating that. People who monitor those pages may object and may come over here to see what has happened here.[reply]

I appreciate the editing, I was looking at it and it is quite more complete than the previous one, even the one I had done. It would have to correct some grammatical errors, and some data for example: Vilas vs Connors was 2-0, not 2-1; Borg won 11 ATP tournaments, but if you count the total of tournaments in the season is 13, this all right; in that way we would also have to add the non-ATP tournaments of Vilas (Rye, for example) and change the Vilas Record to 141-14 from 145-14 and the wons in a row to 46 (as ATP counts) to a real 50 (the four victories of Rye was in the middle of the row). In the "El Mundo Deportivo" article that i shwon in the discussion, its stated that Borg won 13 total titles and Vilas 21 total titles in the year, the same as the tennisbase archives. Plos One Magazine doesnt rank equal Borg and Vilas, but it gives Vilas the No. 1. About Rod Laver, Tennis Magazine (U.S.) and some other source in favor of Borg, I do not have that data but if you checked them, it must be true. I am waiting for the delivery of Gene Scott's book "Gros Plans sur le Tennis", compiled in 1978 and published in 1979, to see what he really thinks about Vilas and Borg in 1977 and to be able to add it to the list if its relevant. If it does not bother you I can correct the mentioned data, and add Vilas in the final list of the article, in which it is not yet listed. Greetings.Mtin76 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mtn - The Plos One article rates them .01 different - that is equal. I will not allow you to change that and will get wolbo and Fyunck to assist on that. Forget about those 4 other titles - they took only 6 wins, so some of those were 1 victory exhitibions - your attachment clearly labels them as exhibitions - those do not count. Borgs other 2 victories took 5 wins so those were at least significant tournaments - if we count Rye then we count his other 2 victories. Your choice. Informed analysis (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plos One article ranks Vilas first. Financial Times Article rates 0,1 different. you have probably confused the sources:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249.t002

About the tournaments, i can acept to quite the one tournament to 2 players (Aux en Providence International against Ilie Nastase. the other 21 tournaments, I even found two important sources that name them the same as the 13 vicories of Borg:

"Let's look at the numbers. Though Connors won eight of the 21 tournaments he entered, his match record for the year was only 70-11, not as good as Borg's (13 victories in 20 tournaments, 78-8 in matches) and Vilas', who played just about every waking minute in compiling his 139-14 match record and 21 wins in 34 tournaments." (Sports Illustrated, January 16, 1978)

https://www.si.com/vault/1978/01/16/822302/and-it-was-still-three-for-one-although-jimmy-connors-won-the-colgate-grand-prix-he-failed-to-settle-the-vexing-question-of-whos-no-1--he-borg-or-vilas#

"To give the No. 1 to Vilas, "World Tennis" is based on the 21 tournaments won by the Argentine " (El Mundo Deportivo of Barcelona Spain, January 16, 1978)

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762766582800385

Mtin76 (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist it stating the PLOS survey showed Vilas ahead when they were in fact statistically tied (.01 difference), I will revert the entire year back to Borg being No. 1 as Fyunck had preferred. The articles in fact says statistically studies done after the fact will not be accepted but I was lenient and accepted yours. Informed analysis (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Analisis, threats on the margin: I repeat, the one that give 0,1 difference is the Financial Times investigation! you are confusing the sources! i give both sources and its Financial Times, For the year 1977, who had Vilas 5.73 score agains 5.72 for Borg (0,01) and 5.43 to Connors. PlAnd ease revised the sources. Plos One ranked equal Borg and Vilas is WRONG!!

PLOSONE MAGAZINE: Vilas LISTED N°1 of PRESTIGE RANKING!!!! CONNORS FOR ATP!!!

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249.t002

FINANCIAL TIMES: Vilas 77: 5,73!!! Borg 77: 5,72!!! That's the 0.01 diference you mean!!!

https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/

Mtin76 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was wrong. Sorry. I guess I just assumed the worst.Informed analysis (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I would prefer that you edit the data about PlosOne and financial times, since I do not want to have any more problems with anyone, thanksMtin76 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Guillermo Vilas on Cover of World Tennis Magazine.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guillermo Vilas on Cover of World Tennis Magazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manu[edit]

Sorry, but these additions are rather confusing. The older version of the article was much easier to read. Let's slow down a bit. To start, we should discuss the Olympic MVP award at Talk:Manu Ginóbili. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 16:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Hi zagakejo. I had no big problem whit leave the current versión, but the fact that Ginobili was elected mvp for the media in the 2004 summer olympics games is enciclopedy relevant to been named. At least to say "media mvp". Sources are strong and powerfull. The rest, its okay to me.[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Mtin76. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]